-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy

Search This Blog

10.04.2010

News from Congress-We have met the enemy. And it is us

News from Congress-"We have met the enemy. And it is us"-- [These are my thoughts exactly Scotty]

Ex-lawmakers scold Congress

Some former members of Congress have this to say to this season's crop of congressional candidates: "We have met the enemy. And it is us."

In an unprecedented letter to all congressional candidates in both parties, more than 130 former members of Congress said it's time to halt "this sorry state of affairs" and start to "focus on problem solving."

Congress "appears gripped by zero-sum game partisanship," in which the goal often seems to be more to devastate the other side ... than to find common ground to solve problems," they wrote.

It is a pointed message from some experts who know the territory and want everybody to get along better.

They urge current members to show "decency and respect toward opponents" and engage in truthfulness and good-faith debate and end personal attacks — in both campaigns and their legislative work.

The cry of "enough" was organized by the new group Former Members of Congress for Common Ground, led by former Reps. John Porter (R-Ill.) and David Skaggs (D-Colo.). Each served on the House Appropriations Committee and was known for his bipartisan approach. And each remains professionally active on Capitol Hill as a lawyer with a large firm.

The letter resulted from more than three months of discussions among the former members who signed the letter. The public is "hugely perplexed and dismayed" about the problems facing the nation, Skaggs said. And he hopes the initiative will be a catalyst for current and would-be lawmakers to know and respect one another.

"People are fed up," including members of Congress, at a time when the nation faces huge challenges and needs more consensus building, added Skaggs, who recently has gained attention as chairman of the House's Office of Congressional Ethics. The two activities are not related.

"We can't continue the way we have gone in the past. People want to cut the childish political posturing," Porter said. "With the problems facing the country, our campaigns have become an embarrassment to democracy."

Those problems have resulted, in part, he said, from a political nominating process that favors more extreme views and from political consultants "who encourage negative campaigns because it, unfortunately, works."

The former members also cited larger cultural factors. "Members who far exceed the bounds of normal and respectful discourse," they said in their letter, "are not viewed with shame but are lionized, treated as celebrities, rewarded with cable television appearances and enlisted as magnets for campaign fundraisers."

Skaggs and Porter gave POLITICO an advance copy of the letter, which they plan to discuss in a conference call with reporters Monday. They said that their group may pursue other activities, including bipartisan contacts with candidates in their home states.

Although the letter does not cite specifics, there are plenty of recent examples in which members of Congress have used over-the-top rhetoric in references to other lawmakers or to their campaign opponents.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), for example, recently called his opponent, Daniel Webster, "Taliban Dan," saying his social views are those of a "religious fanatic." He earlier said that blood often "drips" from former Vice President Dick Cheney's teeth when he speaks.

On the other side of the aisle, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann said this summer that President Barack Obama was turning the United States into a "nation of slaves" and that Democratic control of the White House and Congress had become "tyranny."

Despite the pervasive harsh rhetoric, the 111th Congress has been among the most productive in recent history, albeit on a mostly partisan basis. But the letter from the former lawmakers listed a litany of problems that are "as great as any this country has faced in our lifetimes."

Occasionally, political leaders have called for an end to hostilities. President Barack Obama, for instance, initially styled himself as a "post-partisan president." And next month's midterm elections could increase the need for him to work across the aisle. But Republicans complain that they have had little contact with him over the past two years.

In a speech last week, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said that Congress was "broken" and called for repairing the "fragile bonds of trust" with the public.

"The institution does not function, does not deliberate and seems incapable of acting on the will of the people," he told a Washington audience, blaming both parties for the "dysfunction."

The letter was spurred by a daylong conference at the National Archives in June, sponsored by the Bipartisan Policy Center, in which former members assembled to discuss "breaking the stalemate." Porter and Skaggs said they received technical assistance from the Association of Former Members of Congress, which was founded in 1970 but has not worked on current legislative issues.

The association lists 557 members on its website, many still active as lobbyists or in other work. The total number of ex-members is much larger, however, given the 535 seats in Congress.

Among the more than 130 former members who signed the letter are past House leaders of both parties — including Democrats Vic Fazio and Martin Frost and Republicans Bob Michel and Mickey Edwards. Other recent leaders, though, were notable by their absence, such as Republicans Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay and Democrats Tom Foley and Dick Gephardt.

A few ex-senators also joined the letter, including James Abourezk, Bill Brock, Gary Hart, Bob Packwood and Tim Wirth.





Lead News for Builders and Home Owners-2 Articles

Article 1:Answers About the EPA Lead Certification (RRP) Rule

comments (9) April 26th, 2010 in Blogs        
Cermides Chris Ermides, associate editor

1. How does the EPA justify the $300 fee? Will that be used to fund the EPA lead program?

As specified in section 402 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA must establish and implement a fee schedule to recover for the U.S. Treasury the Agency's costs of administering and enforcing the standards and requirements applicable to lead-based paint training programs and contractors.  The fees will recover EPA's costs for processing applications, enforcing program requirements, and administrative activities such as maintenance of the central database.  EPA established the fees in March 2009 as part of a rulemaking which provided notice to the public about the rule and considered public comments on the rule.  The rule text can be found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/March/Day-20/t6167.htm

The fees go to the General Treasury.

2. How did the EPA come up with the estimated cost per job? It's ridiculously low. For example, does it include the added burden of pollution insurance, which the growing awareness of lead is likely to trigger more contractors to buy? Does it include the cost of training one's crew? Given the high turnover in the construction trades, and the responsibility of the certified RRP person to train the rest of the crew, training costs will be high.
 

While developing the RRP rule, EPA conducted extensive economic analyses, which show that the requirements of the rule are not excessive or overly burdensome, in light of the importance of avoiding the potentially severe consequences of exposure to lead-based paint hazards.  EPA estimates that the costs of containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification will range from $8 to $167 per job, with the exception of those exterior jobs where vertical containment would be required. 

This includes:
•     Costs of equipment (for example, plastic sheeting, tape, HEPA vacuums and tool shrouds – the equipment varies by job).
•     Costs of labor (for example, the time required to perform cleaning and cleaning verification).

In addition to work practice costs, your costs will include training fees and certification fees.  The costs include:
•     Training costs to individual renovators working in pre-1978 housing or child-occupied facilities who must take a course from an accredited training provider (cost is set by the training provider; estimated to be about $200 for a 5-year certification).
•     Certification costs to firms to obtain certification from EPA ($300 fee to the U.S. Treasury for a 5-year certification. This fee is required by law to cover program administration). 

Renovation firms are already carrying out renovation, repair and painting jobs and already pay insurance premiums for their businesses. The new rule will not change this practice.  In fact, renovators who are EPA certified as lead-safe firms will be able to demonstrate to their insurers that they follow protective lead-safe work practices. Therefore, EPA does not believe insurance rates will be adversely affected by following this rule.

Training the crew should be done on the job as part of normal training on work skills and safety. 


3. How many cases of lead poisoning are currently related to remodeling activities ? What reduction do you expect?
 
In the RRP final rule preamble, EPA estimated the number of children living in homes that would be renovated each year.  As a result, there will be approximately 1.4 million children under the age of 6 who will be affected by having their exposure to lead dust minimized due to the rule.

73 FR 21692, at 21750  (April 22, 2008)

4. What's the likelihood of anyone actually getting the maximum fine, and what circumstances would trigger it?

In the first year of the rule, EPA will focus on helping firms comply with the rule's requirements to become lead-safe certified. The Agency will also respond to tips and complaints. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides that any person who violates a requirement is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $37,500 for each violation.  However, in determining a penalty, EPA must take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of each violation.  EPA must also take into account the effect on the violator's ability to continue to do business, and the violator's history of violations and degree of culpability.  With very limited exceptions, EPA also seeks to eliminate the economic benefit a violator may have gained from its violations.  EPA is currently developing a penalty policy which will provide guidance to the EPA Regional Offices on how to apply the penalty factors from TSCA to the RRP rule.

5. Why are RRP certified contractors only allowed to use the least accurate method of testing for the presence of lead?
 
Certified renovators are trained in using the test kits but are not trained in the other methods of detecting lead-based paint.  Certified inspectors and risk assessors are trained in the other methods.  A report from a certified inspector or risk assessor can be used by the renovation firm when determining if the RRP rule applies to the renovation.

 
6. Why is the trigger surface area based on the size of the component rather than the specific work area? (For example, although one clapboard may be significantly smaller than 20 sq. ft., removing it would still fall under RRP because it defines the entire wall, not that single board, as the "component.")

The trigger surface area is based on the amount of lead-based paint disturbed.  If the total surface area of all painted surfaces of the component is less than 20 feet on an exterior job, then that job would not fall under the rule.  If a renovator removes 10 sq ft of an exterior wall , and that is the total amount of paint disturbed during the renovation, then the job would not fall under the rule.  The size of the wall is not the trigger for the rule; rather, the size of the amount of paint being disturbed triggers the rule.

7. Certified RRP personnel have to be retrained every five years. How often does the RRP person have to retrain non-certified employees?

Although there is no specific requirement for ''refresher training,'' on-the-job training must be provided for each worker for each job to the extent necessary to ensure that that worker is adequately trained for the tasks he or she will be performing.


Article 2: The Best Practices for Lead-Safe Remodeling

It's now the law for professional contractors, but working lead-safe should be a priority for everyone

According to new EPA regulations, contractors are required by law to use extensive job-site precautions when working in locations where lead paint is present. In this article, senior editor Justin Fink outlines the best procedures for working lead-safe. The first step on any job site is determining if lead paint is present. Both outer surfaces and layers of paint below should be tested for the presence of lead. While several test kits are on the market, only LeadCheck has met the EPA's stringent qualifications for false positives and false negatives. For outdoor work, use the 10-ft./20-ft. guideline. A perimeter 20 ft. from the work area is an alert that potentially hazardous work is occurring. An area 10 ft. from the work site contains dust, paint chips, and building debris. Be sure to use black plastic on the ground beneath the work area; dust and debris will show up clearly on a dark surface. Minimize dust creation, and avoid heat guns that could fumes or vapors. In addition to a respirator, protect yourself by wearing disposable coveralls, gloves, and booties. Carefully bag up and discard all debris; then vacuum up debris. For interior work, create a small containment zone to work in.

UPDATE (10/1/10): THE LEAD-SAFE RESOURCE CENTER HAS LAUNCHED AT FINEHOMEBUILDING.COM

Learn all you need to know about compliance, certification, tools, equipment, costs, and lead-safety at
www.finehomebuilding.com/lead-safe


--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

DOE gives $3.4mn for wind forecasting using wind farms


15 September 2010-- The U.S. Department of Energy is awarding two wind energy projects a total of $3.4 million over two years to improve short-term wind forecasting, which will accelerate the use of wind power in electricity transmission networks by allowing utilities and grid operators to more accurately forecast when and where electricity will be generated from wind power.

The two funding recipients- AWS Truepower LLC in New York and WindLogics, Inc. in Minnesota - will lead teams of several partners and work with DOE and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to deploy advanced atmospheric measurement systems over a broad area, provide data that allow advanced weather prediction systems to improve short-term turbine-level wind forecasts, and demonstrate the value of these forecasting improvements for electric utility operations.

AWS Truepower, LLC will receive $2.15 million to target a region of high wind energy use in Texas, and will assess utility system benefits with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. The Truepower project team will also include Texas Technological University, North Carolina State University, the University of Oklahoma, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and consultants MESO, Inc., and ICF International.

WindLogics, a unit of NextEra, will receive $1.25 million to place wind projects across portions of several upper Midwest states, and will assess utility benefits with the Midwest Independent System Operator. NextEra will provide meteorological data from 14 wind plants totaling nearly 2 GW of operating capacity. Other partners in the WindLogics project will include South Dakota State University and NREL.

NOAA will provide project support in the areas of research instrument deployment and operation, data assimilation, advanced weather modeling, and meteorology expertise and analysis. A network of sophisticated atmospheric instrumentation will be deployed and operated in the regions identified and supported by the AWS Truepower and WindLogics teams.



--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

UMTDI report calls for $3B in renewable, transmission developments in Midwest region

UMTDI report calls for $3B in renewable, transmission developments in Midwest region


By Dorothy Davis

The Upper Midwest Transmission Development Initiative (UMTDI), a committee representing the Dakotas, Iowa, Minessota, and Wisconsin has released a report recommending the construction of six new transmission corridors in order to harness more than 15,000-megawatts of potential wind energy needed by 2025.

Established in 2008, the UMTDI was tasked with addressing regional transmission planning and cost issues related to distribution of renewable energy across the five state area.

The report identifies 20 key renewable energy zones (assuming a potential minimum capacity of 750-megawatts) in the region best suited for the development of wind power. These zones if developed would then be interconnected through six transmission corridors that would distribute energy to consumers and establish a foundation for future growth.

The estimated cost for the suggested developments would be around $3 billion dollars, which would be incurred over time and spread across the greater Midwest region if a proposal submitted to federal energy regulators is approved.

Specific routes for the new transmission lines have not been proposed by the UMTDI.

Read the full report here: UMTDI Executive Final Report



--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest

Featured Post

How Two Friends Turned Abandoned CASTLE into a 4☆HOTEL | by @chateaudut...

Join us on an extraordinary journey as two lifelong friends, Francis and Benoit, turn a crumbling, centuries-old castle into a stunning 4-st...